Evan A. Feigenbaum Profile picture
Aug 18, 2019 12 tweets 2 min read Read on X
1. Thread ... I want to make a small China/FDI and Belt and Road comment, prompted by reading a few more pieces that dismiss the significance of the thing on grounds that China's pledges "don't add up" and its pledge numbers are "fake." This is a caveat from anecdotal experience.
2: In many places of the place where China Inc. or Chinese entities invest, I don’t think aggregate capital flows are a sufficient measure for understanding impact, real or prospective.
3: There are plenty of countries where the numbers aren’t large—and are often (much) smaller than advertised by the propaganda organs— but where China is either one of a very few outside investors or where global capital flows simply haven’t had an especially meaningful impact.
4: If you’re seeing, say, a hypothetical $150 million of Chinese FDI in XYZistan but more like $0 from anyone else except in, say, one or two extractive sectors, then the Chinese number isn’t huge but the impact *can* be for at least three reasons:
5: First reason: You can actually do quite a lot with just $150 million in XYZistan, including things that the country's elites want ... and where the public actually sees a material impact.
6: Second reason: Few other international investors are doing much of anything in XYZistan, or, as noted, they are doing things but in a couple of sectors only, often with little visible public impact.
7: Third reason: That means the *comparative* numbers, rather than the aggregate Chinese number, can tell you quite a bit about political, social, and material impact, both prospective and real.
8: It's another way to think about this, beyond just looking at a bunch of cumulative numbers, which, I agree, often do not add up. But doing this requires us to simultaneously do three things:
9: For one, it means we would need to be rather granular in terms of understanding what’s happening in individual countries rather than just in the aggregate before we are so dismissive.
10: For another, it means we should be less dismissive of China’s impact generally, for good or for ill, just because “the numbers don’t add up.” They may very well not add up and yet still amount to a good deal on the ground, with a meaningful effect on this or that in XYZistan.
11: Finally, it's why comparative thinking is more useful than weighing China's activities in a vacuum. Everything I read now declares for "competition." Good. But to compete, we can't just dismiss the other guy without reference to others. Competition means more than one player.
12: Sorry for the typos.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Evan A. Feigenbaum

Evan A. Feigenbaum Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @EvanFeigenbaum

Sep 2, 2023
1: Blasts from my past. Have spent 15 years writing on (1) why "US vs. China" bipolarity is the wrong frame for the future of Asia; (2) the collision of economics and security; and (3) why pan-Asian ideas and institutions aren't "made in China." Here are some of my favorites. Image
2: From 2011, when Xi Jinping was barely out of the provinces and two years before China proposed the Belt and Road: Asia is being reconnected after a multicentury hiatus; the US is losing the plot and risks being marginalized; China isn't the only actor. csis.org/analysis/twq-w…
3: From 2012, written with my friend @Rmanning4: Security Asia and Economic Asia are diverging; the US is essential to the former but risks fading in the latter; China isn't the only actor. foreignpolicy.com/2012/10/31/a-t…
Read 12 tweets
Jun 9, 2023
1: No, it really isn't fine. For one, it infantilizes third countries. And it doesn't reflect the complex experience many of them have had with China. BRI is not "a debt and confiscation program," although there are indeed very troubling cases. Above all, whining isn't competing.
2: The irony is that the US doesn't need to do this. There is plenty of suspicion of Chinese intent across the world today, including the Global South. Experience is an good teacher, so governments are learning and bargaining differently with China while mass publics demand more.
3: We have an entire initiative at @CarnegieEndow digging into complex lessons from around the world. And one of these is that local players are learning how to compel or persuade Chinese players to adapt to local ways, not simply accepting "Chinese" ways. carnegieendowment.org/specialproject…
Read 15 tweets
Mar 19, 2023
1: Some background from me for the Xi trip to Moscow, where I expect Beijing to reinforce an entente that is both unsentimental and directed largely at shared ambivalence about (1) US foreign policy, (2) tools of US statecraft, e.g., sanctions, and (3) backfooting Washington.
2: A piece I wrote on Day 1 of Putin's war in Ukraine. I argued that Beijing faced irreconcilable interests and therefore had to choose among them or tack back and forth under the glare of international scrutiny. carnegieendowment.org/2022/02/24/chi…
3: This piece drew in part on personal experience with Beijing's response to Putin's aggression in Georgia in 2008, when I had only recently been the senior US official for Central Asia. Comparing 2022 to 2008 is instructive for seeing the evolution of Beijing's lean into Moscow.
Read 12 tweets
Feb 27, 2023
1: Here's a new paper in our seven region @CarnegieEndow #ChinaLocalGlobal initiative. Yuan Wang from @DukeKunshan and @Hangwei_Li ex @SOASpolitics explore how differing media norms in Kenya and Ethiopia yielded differing PR strategies by Chinese firms. carnegieendowment.org/2023/02/27/afr…
2: The paper focuses on the corporate communication strategies of three Chinese state firms involved in two flagship rail projects in Africa: the Standard Gauge Railway in Kenya, constructed by CRBC, and the Addis Ababa–Djibouti Railway in Ethiopia, constructed by CCECC and CREC.
3: Drawing on fieldwork they argue that these Chinese state firms exhibited divergent paths. CRBC has learned and adapted, largely because of Kenya's vibrant media environment and watchdog journalism; CCECC and CREC didn't because Ethiopia lacks naming and shaming by local media.
Read 33 tweets
Jan 7, 2023
1: We’ve added a whopping 11 new scholars to our Washington-based @CarnegieEndow Asia programs over the last three years - six full-time and five nonresident scholars. They are brilliant, innovative, and disruptive to conventional wisdom. If you don’t read their work, you should! Image
2: Our unique #IndianOceanInitiative and our islands program are both led by the amazing @darshanabaruah. Her work explores maritime security, India’s naval strategy, island agency in shaping great power competition, and maritime partnerships. carnegieendowment.org/experts/1253
3: We've also done a major buildout in our work on Asian technology futures, not least by welcoming @mattsheehan88, who deeply understands China's tech ecosystem. He studies China’s AI ecosystem - and the role of technology in China’s political economy. carnegieendowment.org/experts/2116
Read 19 tweets
Nov 19, 2022
1: A few folks asked me to elaborate on this. I'll try. And please note that I don't mean to pick on the Kahl speech per se, since his speech isn't really about China. But the way China is framed there is (1) endemic in US rhetoric but (2) spectacularly ineffective, in my view.
2: To be blunt, experience and intuition tell me that Washington is delusional if thinks this kind of stark, binary message on China is going to work in most regions of the world - inclusive of, but not limited to, the Middle East and North Africa.
3: Of course, one problem is that big powers are self evidently self-interested. So calling China “transactional and opportunistic” while presenting the US as purely “altruistic” will presumably be laughed out of the room in most global capitals.
Read 17 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(